I am downloading the Mate version of Linux Mint 13 Maya, partially because the developers admit that Mate(a fork of gnome 2), is more stable than the Cinnamon(a customized version of Gnome 3). As much publicity as Ubuntu gets, I think Linux Mint deserves more publicity, as they don't seem to be run by a dictator like Ubuntu. Linux Mint also offers a Debian-based version of Mint, which I suppose Mint developers could shift focus to if Mark Shuttleworth becomes even more of a dictator and drives even more people away from Ubuntu. So, I hear a lot of talk about Ubuntu, but not enough about Linux Mint, which seems to be doing very well. Mark Shuttleworth has done some great things for Linux, but there is a saying that absolute power corrupts, and Beast Shuttleworth seems to be outgrowing his jeans, ignoring input from developers and the common folk. I hope other people see what is going on. I suppose the serpents scales fell from my eyes quite a while ago, and there is much more to it, but in the mean-time, it would be great if the people could be liberated from forceful decisions such as Mr. Shuttleworths, and Linux Mint is a great alternative for now. And I will add one more thing. It would be great if the Linux Mint team shifted most of their effort to the debian-based version, since Debian feels more pure, less bloated, and is much more snappy than anything Ubuntu-related. And my apologies ahead of time to the moderators, I'm not intending this to get into R&P.

Since I'm still newbie'ish in Linux world, I somehow preceive Ubuntu = Stability, Fedora = Stablity, anything else = a lot of compiling. I guess that's not true anymore, or is it?

Mint (the standard edition, not the debian edition) is based on Ubuntu and uses many Ubuntu repositories, in addition to its own custom ones. Thus, you mostly get the same prebuilt deb packages as Ubuntu. If Ubuntu works with your hardware, Mint likely does too. If Ubuntu provides a software package you like, so does Mint in all probability.

Mint is essentially Ubuntu + extras + customizations, though the extras list is certainly quite impressive now and many customizations are also generally praised. The primary difference is that Unity is not the default desktop in Mint, focusing instead on other desktop environments like MATE, Cinnamon, KDE or Xfce.

edit: Not sure of recent versions, but in the past Mint also provided codecs, flash etc., making things very easy for a Joe-average user.

1) User interface. Ubuntu's default is Unity, while Mint gives either Cinnamon (based on GNOME 3's libraries) or MATE (a forked version of GNOME 2), but both can also be had with KDE, Xfce, LXDE, and any window manager in the repository. You can install MATE and/or Cinnamon on Ubuntu as well with a few commands.

2) Codecs for MP3s and other encumbered formats installed by default, which can be done with Ubuntu by installing ubuntu-restricted-extras.

3) Different default themes.

The biggest downside with Mint, so I've read, is that the devs don't recommend updating between releases, i.e. if you've got Mint 12 installed they don't recommend using the update manager to upgrade to version 13; instead they suggest doing a fresh install from a Mint 13 disc. Probably this is a side effect of a smaller dev team than Ubuntu or Debian have. One option here is to use LMDE, which is directly based on Debian and has "rolling releases" every ~6 months that don't require reinstalls in between. I've had at least one person tell me that LMDE doesn't get security updates in a timely manner, though.

As you might guess, I'm still not sure which distro to install to replace my damaged *buntu.

moresmarterthanspock wrote:I am downloading the Mate version of Linux Mint 13 Maya, partially because the developers admit that Mate(a fork of gnome 2), is more stable than the Cinnamon(a customized version of Gnome 3). As much publicity as Ubuntu gets, I think Linux Mint deserves more publicity, as they don't seem to be run by a dictator like Ubuntu. Linux Mint also offers a Debian-based version of Mint, which I suppose Mint developers could shift focus to if Mark Shuttleworth becomes even more of a dictator and drives even more people away from Ubuntu. So, I hear a lot of talk about Ubuntu, but not enough about Linux Mint, which seems to be doing very well. Mark Shuttleworth has done some great things for Linux, but there is a saying that absolute power corrupts, and Beast Shuttleworth seems to be outgrowing his jeans, ignoring input from developers and the common folk. I hope other people see what is going on. I suppose the serpents scales fell from my eyes quite a while ago, and there is much more to it, but in the mean-time, it would be great if the people could be liberated from forceful decisions such as Mr. Shuttleworths, and Linux Mint is a great alternative for now. And I will add one more thing. It would be great if the Linux Mint team shifted most of their effort to the debian-based version, since Debian feels more pure, less bloated, and is much more snappy than anything Ubuntu-related. And my apologies ahead of time to the moderators, I'm not intending this to get into R&P.

Considering Ubuntu is trying to taken seriously as an alternate to Redhat and Mark Shuttleworth is pouring his own finances into the distro, I think he's in the right to shape up his distribution. Linux Mint is a toy people run on their 2 year old laptop to show that they are different.

Considering Ubuntu is trying to taken seriously as an alternate to Redhat and Mark Shuttleworth is pouring his own finances into the distro, I think he's in the right to shape up his distribution. Linux Mint is a toy people run on their 2 year old laptop to show that they are different.

This is what I do not like about some aspects of the Linux community. That sure comes across as arrogant to the average user who is not interested in the business or the complete "geeked out" steep learning curve of Linux, but want a basic solid alternative to Windows. Mint is in a nice position to appeal to people like this. I personally know multiple people who are computer literate enough to try something else besides Windows...I've pointed them all to Mint [I run it on one of my home systems]. The interest is there - why despise it? I believe Mint is a great opportunity to promote Linux to the average user.

Considering Ubuntu is trying to taken seriously as an alternate to Redhat and Mark Shuttleworth is pouring his own finances into the distro, I think he's in the right to shape up his distribution. Linux Mint is a toy people run on their 2 year old laptop to show that they are different.

This is what I do not like about some aspects of the Linux community. That sure comes across as arrogant to the average user who is not interested in the business or the complete "geeked out" steep learning curve of Linux, but want a basic solid alternative to Windows.

Not just the average user. That should come off as arrogant to everyone. Different distros have different uses. People like different things. No need to hate on the people that use it because you don't like it.

Got Linux Mint 13 installed yesterday. I'm glad they went with a different default theme for Cinnamon and included some of the more popular options out there. So far the biggest change for me is that the Software Manager seems significantly snappier, I'm not aware of them making any big changes to it so I'm a bit confused by that but it is welcome. I didn't encounter stability problems with CInnamon on my Mint 12 install so I'm going to brave it and see how it works out.

Since I'm still newbie'ish in Linux world, I somehow preceive Ubuntu = Stability, Fedora = Stablity, anything else = a lot of compiling. I guess that's not true anymore, or is it?

If you check out the website DistroWatch.com you can get a good idea of the popular distros out there. Every distro in the top 10 except Arch would fit your idea of Ubuntu or Fedora. Out of the top 10 I'd actually say Fedora is probably the least stable in my experience. Arch fits more in to your idea of "a lot of compiling" but there's no compiling invovled (unless you want to, of course). Arch has a text based installation, you'll have to do some manual editing of several configuration files (the installer tells you which ones, and there's a nice beginners guide on the Arch site), if you want more than just a shell you'll have to manually pull in a desktop environment like KDE, GNOME3, etc, etc from the Arch repository and manually install it. So while you don't have to compile the software it can certainly be a daunting installation process for someone who doesn't have some patience and a desire to learn.

But in general there are numerous Linux distros that are just as easy to get up and running as Ubuntu or Fedora, in my opinion the biggest thing you miss out on going with something not based on one of those two is the size of the community. When you have an issue with Ubuntu chances are a number of others have experienced it too, posted on the forums and found a solution.

shank15217 wrote:Considering Ubuntu is trying to taken seriously as an alternate to Redhat and Mark Shuttleworth is pouring his own finances into the distro, I think he's in the right to shape up his distribution. Linux Mint is a toy people run on their 2 year old laptop to show that they are different.

I agree that demonizing Shuttleworth isn't a good way to promote another distro, but I also understand why people are put off by Shuttleworth's behavior. While I understand his ultimate goal, I think he doesn't have a clear vision or going about it in a way friendly to the community that has made Ubuntu great. Calling Linux Mint a toy is nothing but a poor trolling attempt and ridiculous to anyone who has used it. At this point it's clear that myself and many others consider Linux Mint to be a superior distro, and the attention it has received (clearly reflected on DistroWatch) shows this.

This is what I do not like about some aspects of the Linux community. That sure comes across as arrogant to the average user who is not interested in the business or the complete "geeked out" steep learning curve of Linux, but want a basic solid alternative to Windows.

Not just the average user. That should come off as arrogant to everyone. Different distros have different uses. People like different things. No need to hate on the people that use it because you don't like it.

I have to agree with revparadigm here. I don't care about politics and stuff, I want Linux to be a SOLID, USABLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD alternative to Windows. I'm a software developer, and I have enough CS knowledge and practice to get into kernel patching within few months if I would need to. But I don't have time or desire to learn different nooks and crannies of an OS, and average Joe has even less desire to do so. I have way too many duties that I value more than learning new desktop environment because it's cool or something.

I want business ready solutions, and if the platform is business ready, I can produce 3rd party applications for this platform, therefore increasing the popularity and recognition and value of this platform. Therefore bringing more customers and income through sponsorship, etc. But if I have a great choice of 10 broken distributions, most of them having a steep learning curve, I will find myself in a position where I will skip the platform altogether, and I will advise my customers to do the same.

When I developed a business database system and internal/web front ends for a system 5 or so years ago, I had to decide which platform to choose. I chose Windows because even though it costs more, not by much, it's less expensive in the long run. Windows professionals are easier to come by, guys with few months of coding experience are able to support IIS/MSSQL or file server. Setting up active directory is something a school graduate can do, and everyone is accustomed to the GUI. It was just so much easier in the long run.

With Ubuntu 10.04 LTS it seemed to me that the situation might have changed already, because the OS was working out of the box, and was productive so that Windows user would be up to speed in 20 minutes. And now, it seems 12.04 LTS is something for tablets? You can't seriously consider recommending 12.04 LTS to any company who has been working and has people from Windows background. Especially if they have to do heavy multitasking like most of the commercial work-flows.

Luckily it seems that the Mint is actually what I'm looking for, maybe they'll continue to carry the torch towards usable Linux and therefore more market share, better 3rd party support, and therefore towards better non-toy Linux. I will see how it will behave once I'll spend one more day on Linux installation.

Madman wrote:With Ubuntu 10.04 LTS it seemed to me that the situation might have changed already, because the OS was working out of the box, and was productive so that Windows user would be up to speed in 20 minutes. And now, it seems 12.04 LTS is something for tablets? You can't seriously consider recommending 12.04 LTS to any company who has been working and has people from Windows background. Especially if they have to do heavy multitasking like most of the commercial work-flows.

Luckily it seems that the Mint is actually what I'm looking for, maybe they'll continue to carry the torch towards usable Linux and therefore more market share, better 3rd party support, and therefore towards better non-toy Linux. I will see how it will behave once I'll spend one more day on Linux installation.

There sure is a lot of whining about Unity. Unity works fine. It needs continued tweaking, sure, but it works fine. If Unity is not to your taste, though, I thought it was pretty easy to install and specify another desktop package to be the default. I've got nothing against Mint either. All the Unity rage seems like too much drama.

Madman wrote:I have to agree with revparadigm here. I don't care about politics and stuff, I want Linux to be a SOLID, USABLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD alternative to Windows.

I don't think anyone in this forum has argued that any distro of Linux should be anything other than solid, usable, and straightforward.

And now, it seems 12.04 LTS is something for tablets? You can't seriously consider recommending 12.04 LTS to any company who has been working and has people from Windows background. Especially if they have to do heavy multitasking like most of the commercial work-flows.

12.04 is designed for computers. It does not run on tablets, and it was not designed to run on tablets. You have a handful of minor gripes about 12.04 that don't add up to a broken or useless operating system in any way. Seriously, you wouldn't recommend it to people because the taskbar is on the left and you personally have a wide display setup? That strikes me as a pretty myopic way to judge a distro. That's like spurning OS X solely because the min/max/close buttons are on a different side than Windows users are used to. Yes, it's true, and yes, that is slightly inconvenient, but you're missing the big picture for one tiny detail.

Ubuntu has a proven history of successfully managing large businesses and especially government agencies transitioning to it, being deployed on as many as 180,000 computers at a time with great results. So why wouldn't I recommend it to businesses?

Luckily it seems that the Mint is actually what I'm looking for, maybe they'll continue to carry the torch towards usable Linux and therefore more market share, better 3rd party support, and therefore towards better non-toy Linux. I will see how it will behave once I'll spend one more day on Linux installation.

I hope you like it, but again, if you want to talk Linux and PC market share, the only big name is Ubuntu. As far as 3rd-party support and compatibility issues, we should all just be thankful that almost all the big names in desktop Linux are Debian derivatives... that shrinks the world a little bit.

grantmeaname wrote:You have a handful of minor gripes about 12.04 that don't add up to a broken or useless operating system in any way. Seriously, you wouldn't recommend it to people because the taskbar is on the left and you personally have a wide display setup?

You said it better than I did. The gripes are minor and it's a bit exasperating to hear them being treated like they make the system unusable. Dunno. I seem to be able to move from XP to 7 to 8 to Mac to Unity to command line without much issue. KDE bugs me because everything has to have a "K" in the name, but it's still usable too. How do some people become so inflexible and others do not?

shank15217 wrote:Considering Ubuntu is trying to taken seriously as an alternate to Redhat and Mark Shuttleworth is pouring his own finances into the distro, I think he's in the right to shape up his distribution. Linux Mint is a toy people run on their 2 year old laptop to show that they are different.

This is what I do not like about some aspects of the Linux community. That sure comes across as arrogant to the average user who is not interested in the business or the complete "geeked out" steep learning curve of Linux, but want a basic solid alternative to Windows. Mint is in a nice position to appeal to people like this. I personally know multiple people who are computer literate enough to try something else besides Windows...I've pointed them all to Mint [I run it on one of my home systems]. The interest is there - why despise it? I believe Mint is a great opportunity to promote Linux to the average user.

Yup, I've been convinced for many years now that the Linux (and Open Source in general) evangelists are sometimes their own worst enemies. You don't win people over by telling them you think they're stupid for running Windows, or for using some distro you don't approve of. (And if you REALLY want to see some smug holier-than-thou attitude try talking to a FreeBSD evangelist sometime... "OUR system is descended from the REAL UNIX source code... Linux is just a hacked together clone!")

I do agree with the first sentence of shank15217's post, in the sense that Shuttleworth can do whatever the heck he wants with his distro (as long as he plays by the rules of the GPL). I don't agree with the direction Canonical has taken with Unity, and yes I know he's done a few things that have pissed off some of the upstream developers, but Canonical has arguably done more to promote and facilitate the use of Linux on the desktop than anyone else; that counts for a lot in my book. Furthermore, as others have pointed out Mint is based on Ubuntu; so without Shuttleworth/Canonical/Ubuntu, Mint probably wouldn't even exist!

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

just brew it! wrote:Yup, I've been convinced for many years now that the Linux (and Open Source in general) evangelists are sometimes their own worst enemies.

Linux fairs no worse than, well, anything else in this regard. Windows, Mac, Radeon, Geforece, AMD, Intel. Fanboys and elitists abound. I don't know why Linux fanboys get singled out as worse than any other. Really, the worst fanboys seem to be the AMD/Nvidia/Intel ones. Those discussions go to some very bad places; it's disturbing.

just brew it! wrote:Yup, I've been convinced for many years now that the Linux (and Open Source in general) evangelists are sometimes their own worst enemies.

Linux fairs no worse than, well, anything else in this regard. Windows, Mac, Radeon, Geforece, AMD, Intel. Fanboys and elitists abound. I don't know why Linux fanboys get singled out as worse than any other. Really, the worst fanboys seem to be the AMD/Nvidia/Intel ones. Those discussions go to some very bad places; it's disturbing.

BobbinThreadbare wrote:There difference is that pretty much only fanboys use desktop Linux.

Possibly more true than false. False in my case. I barely use Linux at all (been over a year since I've had a desktop at home running it). I'm not a Linux fanboy by any measure. But I do think it is - at this point - a completely viable desktop operating system. The only thing that is missing is broad ISV support. The OS itself and the FOSS distros that build on top of it are pretty darn excellent. If all my software worked on Ubuntu and I had the choice between $0 Ubuntu and $50 Windows 7 Professional, well, I'd be running Ubuntu. It's a really fun system to use, mainly because of the "software center" and the absolute ease with which I can install hundreds of really interesting programs, and the fact that I don't have to "validate" my OS or enter a 25 character product key or worry about transfering my OS to a different machine. System updates are seamless. System stability is epic. Hardware support is darn near 100% (damn the Radeons, but my brand new Samsung laser printer works flawlessly). There are no "client access" limitations. Etc, etc... You don't have to be a fanboy to acknowledge that there are a huge list of virtues to Linux. It's Achilles's Heel is ISV support. I can't game. I can't Revit. I can't Creative Suite. I can't Quick Books. Hell, even Google, who has it's own Linux OS, won't put out native Linux versions of Picassa and Sketch Up!

grantmeaname wrote:You have a handful of minor gripes about 12.04 that don't add up to a broken or useless operating system in any way.

I don't know, I don't care, once I start my productivity work-flows which include heavy multitasking and 10 of open Windows on the 4 desktops, Unity takes a nose dive, and I'm better off with Windows or 10.04 LTS.

grantmeaname wrote:Ubuntu has a proven history of successfully managing large businesses and especially government agencies transitioning to it, being deployed on as many as 180,000 computers at a time with great results. So why wouldn't I recommend it to businesses?

Because it has been broken for multitasking scenarios, normal screen sizes and menu access?

But it was 5 years ago, 10.04 LTS was not available back then. Although, Ubuntu wasn't broken with Unity back then.

But the general idea back then was that Windows licenses were very cheap, OEM Web server, MSSQL Express, free Visual Studio express, free IIS. And everyone knows how to administer a Windows box. And, once again, 10.04 LTS was not there yet.

grantmeaname wrote:

Luckily it seems that the Mint is actually what I'm looking for, maybe they'll continue to carry the torch towards usable Linux and therefore more market share, better 3rd party support, and therefore towards better non-toy Linux. I will see how it will behave once I'll spend one more day on Linux installation.

I hope you like it, but again, if you want to talk Linux and PC market share, the only big name is Ubuntu.

I know, and this is why I'm so unhappy about the change. 10.04 LTS was finally nearing a target where it could have started reaching into Windows market segment, and now it's all lost again. Big companies will just look at it and say, oh, 0.95% market share, man-years on testing, few paying customers - screw it.

Generally fanboys are just convinced that their brand's product is the best in that product's category. Linux evangelists are also convinced that their product (the linux OS) is the best in an entirely orthogonal category ("Free as in speech!").

madman wrote:I know, and this is why I'm so unhappy about the change. 10.04 LTS was finally nearing a target where it could have started reaching into Windows market segment, and now it's all lost again.

Uh-huh.

It's been the "year of desktop linux" for well-over a decade now. You're delusional.

Madman wrote:I don't know, I don't care, once I start my productivity work-flows which include heavy multitasking and 10 of open Windows on the 4 desktops, Unity takes a nose dive, and I'm better off with Windows or 10.04 LTS.

And it's fine that you choose not to use it. But that doesn't mean that the operating system is broken.

Because it has been broken for multitasking scenarios, normal screen sizes and menu access?

Your actual problem is using alt+tab with more than four windows open per desktop... and for the record, alt+tab still works, it just somehow hurts your feelings. Few people who aren't programmers use more than sixteen windows at a time, and fewer of them would call the fact that they'd have to look at five windows in the same alt+tab interface "broken". Even of that group, we have to further restrict it to people who refuse to expand to more than four desktops before we've even violated the terribly restrictive and whiny use restrictions. Even then, the OS isn't offering any less functionality than Windows and OS X do! I get that you don't like certain things about the way the operating system behaves, but that in no way makes it broken.I've used 9 releases of Ubuntu on screens from 10 to 28 inches and resolutions from 1024*768 up to 1920*1200, and across a wide range of dot pitches. It is perfectly functional for all of them. What about Ubuntu's behavior is even remotely broken with regards to screen size or resolution scaling?To access the menus, click the windows key or the alt key, or move to the top or left of the screen. Was that so hard?

grantmeaname wrote:I've used 9 releases of Ubuntu on screens from 10 to 28 inches and resolutions from 1024*768 up to 1920*1200, and across a wide range of dot pitches. It is perfectly functional for all of them. What about Ubuntu's behavior is even remotely broken with regards to screen size or resolution scaling?To access the menus, click the windows key or the alt key, or move to the top or left of the screen. Was that so hard?

Menus are mile away from where your focus is, you select something, then you go over a mile to choose an action, go over a mile again to select next selection and mile again to do next operation, and I don't remember alt+v+x+z all the time, I don't even remember exact menu placement when I go over with a mouse, or exact names to use HUD.

You've clearly demonstrated that there are minor annoyances for your specific use cases. I've acknowledged that those aspects of the operating system do actually annoy you. That doesn't make the operating system broken.

Madman wrote:Menus are mile away from where your focus is, you select something, then you go over a mile to choose an action, go over a mile again to select next selection and mile again to do next operation,

I think the unit of distance you're looking for is "four inches". It would be less if you would move the windows up on the screen. And if you turned your mouse sensitivity up it would probably hurt your feelings less.

and I don't remember alt+v+x+z all the time, I don't even remember exact menu placement when I go over with a mouse, or exact names to use HUD.

Are you serious? You're mad at Ubuntu because it doesn't remember keyboard shortcuts or where things are in menus for you? You know Windows doesn't do that either, right?

grantmeaname wrote:... And if you turned your mouse sensitivity up it would probably hurt your feelings less.

I'm all for high mouse sensitivity. But why should someone who's used to having it set lower be forced to change it just because Canonical decides to make arbitrary (and IMO ill-advised) UI design changes?

I do plan to give Unity another chance, but expect that I'll probably be switching to KDE or XFCE...

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

I wouldn't say the user should be forced to turn up their sensitivity. But if you choose to structure your workspace spatially in such a way that you've got to cross the mousepad two or three times with the mouse just to get up to the top bar, it mostly looks like you making yourself miserable to me and not the developers forcing a change upon you.